Lawyer Chamber Turned 'Vivah Kendra': Allahabad HC Directs Eviction Of 2 Advocates From Lucknow District Court Campus

In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday came down heavily on the unauthorised operation of a so-called 'Vivah Kendra' (Marriage Centre) inside a lawyer's Chamber situated in the old CSC building in the Lucknow District Court Campus. The Court not only ordered the immediate eviction of the 2 advocates occupying the said chamber but also referred the matter to a division bench for initiation of a suo motu Public Interest Litigation regarding the 'unsavoury activities' being undertaken by the Advocates in the District and Sessions Judgeship, Lucknow. A bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Brij Raj Singh passed two orders, one in the pre-lunch session and another post-lunch, after serious irregularities surfaced in a habeas writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The case in brief Briefly put, the petition was filed seeking a direction to the State authorities not to harass the petitioners, Arun Kumar Yadav (petitioner no. 2) and Shivani Yadav (petitioner no. 1), who had married out of their own sweet will, and to ensure protection of their lives. With their plea, they attached a copy of the marriage certificate issued by one 'Pragtisheel Hindu Samaj Nyas, Alambagh', which runs a 'Vivah Kendra'. The certificate also mentioned that the petitioners got married at 'Brahmastra Legal Associates', Chamber No. 31, Erstwhile CSC Building, Kesarbagh, Lucknow. It also bore signatures of Amrish Kumar Tiwari and Raghvendra Hindu, Advocate as Nyasi and Trustee of the Nyas. At the outset, the Court took judicial notice of the alleged Brahamstara Legal Associates running a 'Vivah Kendra' in an Advocate's Chamber. Furthermore, a startling claim was made by the counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner no. 1 (Shivani Yadav), and she had not married petitioner no. 2 and that she continued to reside with her parents. It was further claimed that Shivani had not signed any vakalatnama in favour of the counsel who had filed the petition, and no joint affidavit had been filed by the petitioners. Against this backdrop, the Bench directed the concerned SHO and the Deputy Commissioner of Police to visit the said chamber and submit a report the same day by 2:15 PM. The District Judge was also directed to send an Administrative Officer and a Member of the Infrastructure Sub-Committee to take photographs of the chamber. During the post-lunch hearing, the SHO appeared before the Court and submitted coloured photographs of the chamber. His report indicated that the mobile numbers of two advocates [Raghvendra Mishra Hindu and Vipin Chaurasia] were painted on the door of the chamber. Upon being contacted, Raghvendra Mishra admitted to conducting marriage ceremonies inside Chamber No. 31. He also confirmed that photography and videography of such ceremonies were being done. The report, the bench noted, revealed that inside the chamber, signs of floral decoration and an iron gate with buntings were visible, which suggested recent or ongoing marriage functions. A copy of a marriage certificate of another couple (not related to the present case) was also found inside. Perusing the photographs, the Court noted that some Purohit was also called to conduct wedding ceremonies; however, since there was no sign of any fire being lit inside the place, the Court termed it 'highly doubtful' that 'Saptapadi' had been performed, which is an essential ritual of any Hindu marriage The Court also questioned how the Brahmastra Legal Associate, being run by an advocate, could issue marriage certificates under the banner of Pragatisheel Hindu Samaj Nyas, a trust registered in Alambagh. Taking note of this, the Court observed that such activities amounted to an encroachment and misuse of space reserved exclusively for advocates. Furthermore, the bench was apprised by the petitioners' counsel that the vakalatnama allegedly signed by Shivani Yadav had been given to him by the petitioner no. 2), who had also signed the petition and affidavit. Noting that the affidavit was 'apparently false', the Bench directed the initiation of proceedings under Sections 340 and 195 of the CrPC against Arun Kumar Yadav (petitioner no. 2) and referred the matter to the concerned Magistrate for further action. Against this backdrop, deeming the misuse of the Lawyer's Chamber a serious breach, the Court ordered the District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow, to ensure immediate vacation of the chamber. The court also directed that signage reading 'Brahmastra Legal Associates' and 'Pragatisheel Hindu Samaj Nyas' be erased with white paint within two days. If required, the SHO, P.S. Wazeerganj, was directed to provide all necessary assistance for forcible eviction. The writ petition was thus dismissed.Case title - Shivani Yadav And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others 2025 LiveLaw...

Lawyer Chamber Turned 'Vivah Kendra': Allahabad HC Directs Eviction Of 2 Advocates From Lucknow District Court Campus

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags